Information Needed...Please?

icepik · Sep 9, 2010

With the recent onset of ordinances being adjusted locally to remove the OC restriction but adding the public parks restriction, I'm working on a more aggressive approach to resolve this issue than just going from local to local.

However, in order to proceed down this path, I need to assemble a presentation that will highlight most, or all, communities that have adopted the public park restriction.

I am aware of a few that I'm working on, but certainly am not aware of all the communities across the state that have done this.

What I'm hoping, is that some of you can shed some light on the communities that have done this.

I need this information rather quickly also, as I need to assemble this presentation for a meeting on the 18th of this month. Yes, that's next Saturday.

What I need to know is this.

1. Which community has added this public park restriction or just has it already on their books.
2. When did they add it to the books. (If it was added recently)
3. Who wrote/added it? (City attorney, Administrator, Etc...)
4. Any other info that you think will be helpful.

I would like to use this opportunity to say Thank You to everyone who may offer information for me. I will not have the time to Thank each of you individually.

I will of course keep this board posted on the progress once I have information available that I can share.

Thank you!!!

Jay

Geoff · Sep 9, 2010

Have you already contacted the Village of Saukville about this? If not I can get a hold of the Chief.

Geoff

icepik · Sep 9, 2010

I have contacted Saukville about this. The reply I received is in the Saukville thread. Basically says the city attorney feels it's similar to state statute, therefore it's ok for them to have this restriction.

I'm simply compiling a list of communities that have enacted a public park ban that applies to parks not state owned.

I just need input from people to get this list together.

I do not need names of who gave me this information, simply the info of where this has happened.

There is enough people on this forum, that if everyone just checked their local community ordinances and reported on any that restrict the carry in public parks, my list could get completed much easier than me searching every community in the state.

Hoping everyone will take a few moments to help me.

Thanks!

Jay

paul@paul-fisher.com · Sep 10, 2010

City of Elkhorn:

Has conflicting ordinances.

9.045(a) reads "While in any municipal park, unless unloaded and in a carrying case, (Wis. Stats., §29.089);"

This ordinance was added 7/19/2010 when they made open carry legal in the city. It conflicts with 19.01.11

19.01.11 says "No person in any park shall:

(1)
Carry onto, possess or discharge a shotgun, rifle, pistol, air rifle, sling shot, air gun, archery equipment, firearms or any other weapons or device that discharges projectiles either by air, explosive substance or any other force. This shall not apply to those law enforcement officers acting in their official capacity; "

So, one ordinances allows unloaded and encased, the other doesn't.

I told them this at the time they proposed the ordinance but obviously it fell on deaf ears.

paul@paul-fisher.com · Sep 10, 2010

Walworth County:

No restrictions on carry. Just cannot discharge or hunt. Section 42-1.

Flipper · Sep 10, 2010

Dane County:

53.03 (2) (a) No person may take, catch, kill, hunt, trap, disturb or pursue any wild animal or bird, discharge any firearm, or have in his or her possession or under his or her control any firearm or air gun as defined in s. 932.22, Wis. Stats., unless it is unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case, or any bow, slingshot or springloaded device designed for shooting a projectile unless the same is unstrung or enclosed in a carrying case while in any park except in connection with a hunting activity or event where specifically allowed by written permit issued by the parks director or designee, and then only in strict conformity with the conditions stated in the written permit, or as authorized by sub. (b);

http://danedocs.countyofdane.com/webdocs/pdf/ordinances/ord053.pdf

Flipper · Sep 10, 2010

Would this help?

http://publicrecords.onlinesearches.com/Wisconsin-Laws-and-Codes.htm

littlewolf · Sep 10, 2010

Waupaca co.

Waupaca Co. 19.25 (c) Firearms,No person except law enforcement shall have in there possession or under his control any firearm or air gun as defined by the Wisconsin Statutes unless the same is unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case or any bow unless unstrung or enclosed in a carrying case in any County Park except if such bow or gun is within the confines of any designated gun or archery range or in those parks where hunting is authorised.

This ORD. was revised on Mar 17 2009

icepik · Sep 10, 2010

Flipper said:
Would this help?

http://publicrecords.onlinesearches.com/Wisconsin-Laws-and-Codes.htm

Thanks for the link. I do have it already, but many here perhaps don't.

I'm simply trying to avoid having to go to every communities website to research this. While I can do that, it will take a lot more time than if everyone just checked the local communities they live in.

I still need to have time to put together this presentation for the 18th.

Thanks again!

davegran · Sep 11, 2010

Some cities did not enact park restrictions

Both Janesville and Whitewater changed their ordinances in August to allow open carry and neither one of them enacted a park restriction. Janesville even removed a subsection that allowed confiscation of your firearm if you violated an ordinance. Responsive government in action. :banana:

Shorin21 · Sep 11, 2010

davegran said:
Both Janesville and Whitewater changed their ordinances in August to allow open carry and neither one of them enacted a park restriction. Janesville even removed a subsection that allowed confiscation of your firearm if you violated an ordinance. Responsive government in action. :banana:

i just looked up whitewaters as i only live about 10 minutes from there and there is nothing about oc in whitewater in fact its says only leo's may carry a dangerous weapon in the city....

icepik · Sep 11, 2010

Good info, please keep it coming in.

I've got a few more days to gather info, then on to making the presentation.

Thanks again everyone!!!

davegran · Sep 12, 2010

Shorin21 said:
i just looked up whitewaters as i only live about 10 minutes from there and there is nothing about oc in whitewater in fact its says only leo's may carry a dangerous weapon in the city....

From the August 3, 2010 Whitewater Common Council Meeting Minutes:
http://www.ci.whitewater.wi.us/images/stories/minutes/common_council/2010/ccmin2010-080397.pdf
Page 23:

SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE REPEALING CH. 7.72.030, CARRYING DANGEROUS
WEAPONS. As a result of a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, Whitewater’s code relating to carrying of dangerous weapons must be repealed.

SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING WHITEWATER MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 7.72.030 – CARRYING DANGEROUS WEAPON.

The Common Council of the City of Whitewater, Walworth and Jefferson Counties, Wisconsin, do hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Due to recent Supreme Court decisions and a Wisconsin Attorney General opinion that indicate that Whitewater Municipal Code Section 7.72.030 is unenforceable, Whitewater Municipal Code Section 7.72.030, Carrying Dangerous Weapon, is hereby repealed.

Ordinance introduced by Councilmember Olsen, who moved its adoption. Seconded by Councilmember Stewart. AYES: Olsen, Binnie, Singer, Kienbaum, Stewart. NOES: None. ABSENT: Winship.
ADOPTED: August 3, 2010.

Kevin M. Brunner, City Manager Michele R. Smith, City Clerk

I just received an email from Councilman Binnie advising me that the Whitewater Chief of Police and his officers are up to speed on the ordinance change.

icepik · Sep 19, 2010

Bump....

I had a very productive conversation with some people this weekend.

The information collected already, and hopefully any collected today and early tomorrow will be used when this information is presented to J.B. Van Hollen at a personal meeting between someone who is helping me out and J.B.

Please continue to give me as much info on communities that have enacted this park restriction, it will help, I promise.

Getting closer to a resolution, but I need all the help I can gather.

Thanks!

Jay

Krusty · Sep 20, 2010

LaCrosse County Parks

FIREARMS, HUNTING, TARGET PRACTICE and DEER FEEDING. (1) No person shall have in his possession or under his control any firearm unless the same is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case. (2) No person shall trap or disturb any wild animals or birds within any County Parks, but any person may use a County Park for access to public hunting areas and grounds. (3) No person shall discharge, or cause to be discharged, any missile from any firearm, airgun, slingshot, bow and arrow or other weapon in any County park, except in property designated areas or ranges. (4) No person in Goose Island Park shall feed deer, even for recreational viewing purposes. (5) Exception: The Public Works and Infrastructure Committee may approve deer management plans, allow special deer hunts in County parks, and grant exceptions to the prohibitions set forth in subsections 1 through 4 above, subject to County Board approval.

Updated 12/09

Have Gun - Will Carry · Oct 31, 2010

I'm confused...

I realize this thread has been dormant for over a month and this info is probably too late to help the OP, but thanks for the link to the public records search, and here's Kenosha County's ordinance:

10.04 PERMITS
The following actions are prohibited in any county park without a written permit describing conditions, rules and limitations of the activity from the County Highway and Parks Committee or its duly authorized agent: (11/14/00)

<snip>

(11) No person shall have in his or her possession an uncased firearm, air gun, bow, crossbow, spring operated weapon, cannon, explosive, fireworks, sword, lance, spear or any dangerous weapon as defined in section 939.22 of the Wisconsin Statutes, without a written permit. (12/4/01)

A few days ago I was in Brightondale Park and saw a sign stating "no firearms allowed." But wait a minute - I was under the impression that state preemption nullified these ordinances, or made them unenforceable? What am I missing?

Doug Huffman · Oct 31, 2010

Have Gun - Will Carry said:
But wait a minute - I was under the impression that state preemption nullified these ordinances, or made them unenforceable? What am I missing?

Read 66.0409 for what it says and not for what someone wishes it said.

The only ordinances made unenforceable by 66.0409 are the grandfathered ones. All the others addressed by 66.0409 merely shouldn't have been written and 66.0409 has no enforcement authority.

Read it yourself.

bnhcomputing · Oct 31, 2010

Here we go again...

In 1995, Wisconsin enacted 66.0409. I will include the entire thing here for reference.

66.0409 Local regulation of firearms.

66.0409(1)
(1) In this section:

66.0409(1)(a)
(a) "Firearm" has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (c).

66.0409(1)(b)
(b) "Political subdivision" means a city, village, town or county.

66.0409(1)(c)
(c) "Sport shooting range" means an area designed and operated for the practice of weapons used in hunting, skeet shooting and similar sport shooting.

66.0409(2)
(2) Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4), no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.

66.0409(3)
(3)

66.0409(3)(a)
(a) Nothing in this section prohibits a county from imposing a sales tax or use tax under subch. V of ch. 77 on any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, sold in the county.

66.0409(3)(b)
(b) Nothing in this section prohibits a city, village or town that is authorized to exercise village powers under s. 60.22 (3) from enacting an ordinance or adopting a resolution that restricts the discharge of a firearm.

66.0409(4)
(4)

66.0409(4)(a)
(a) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from continuing to enforce an ordinance or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and that regulates the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, if the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.

66.0409(4)(am)
(am) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from continuing to enforce until November 30, 1998, an ordinance or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and that requires a waiting period of not more than 7 days for the purchase of a handgun.

66.0409(4)(b)
(b)If a political subdivision has in effect on November 17, 1995, an ordinance or resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, and the ordinance or resolution is not the same as or similar to a state statute, the ordinance or resolution shall have no legal effect and the political subdivision may not enforce the ordinance or resolution on or after November 18, 1995.

66.0409(4)(c)
(c) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing a zoning ordinance that regulates the new construction of a sport shooting range or when the expansion of an existing sport shooting range would impact public health and safety.

66.0409(5)
(5) A county ordinance that is enacted or a county resolution that is adopted by a county under sub. (2) or a county ordinance or resolution that remains in effect under sub. (4) (a) or (am) applies only in those towns in the county that have not enacted an ordinance or adopted a resolution under sub. (2) or that continue to enforce an ordinance or resolution under sub. (4) (a) or (am), except that this subsection does not apply to a sales or use tax that is imposed under subch. V of ch. 77.

66.0409(4)(a) says that they can continue to enforce their ordinance as long as it is "no more stringent than" state law.

66.0409(4)(b) is the part that Doug talks about, IF they HAD an ordinance before November 1995, that ordinance is no longer enforceable unless it is similar to state law.

66.0409(2) is the part that says they CANNOT ENACT.

If one actually reads it, then one understands they cannot enforce the ordinances existing BEFORE 1995, and they cannot enact any after that are "more stringent" but as Doug points out, 66.0409 has no teeth so it has to be settled by an individual civil suit.

The issue with parks, is that the League of Municipalities has mistakenly advised the counties, cities, villages, and towns that the can enact park ban ordinances because they are the same as or similar to state law. The "League" conveniently left out the "no more stringent than."

The only way to settle this will be to directly challenge these local park ordinances in court. As a civil challenge is "preferred" over a criminal or citation challenge, you would much prefer to challenge the legality of ordinance without being cited for violating it, rather than challenging after receiving a citation.

Such a challenge is prepared and should be served within the next few days to one of WI counties.

In the meantime, some municipalities ban carry in parks, some do not. Should you choose to carry in a park where a ban is in place prior to this being settled in court, you do so at your own risk.

Hope that helps and doesn't confuse anybody even more.

Have Gun - Will Carry · Oct 31, 2010

bnhcomputing said:
If one actually reads it, then one understands they cannot enforce the ordinances existing BEFORE 1995, and they cannot enact any after that are "more stringent"

Thank you, that is exactly what I thought 66.0409 said.

bnhcomputing said:
In the meantime, some municipalities ban carry in parks, some do not. Should you choose to carry in a park where a ban is in place prior to this being settled in court, you do so at your own risk.

Hope that helps and doesn't confuse anybody even more.

My intention is not to buck the system and risk a ticket (in a county park.) I was simply asking for clarification on a point I didn't understand, because I'm new here and I saw what seems to be an inconsistency in the law - and we all know that doesn't happen in Wisconsin, right?

Thanks again, bnh.

bnhcomputing · Oct 31, 2010

Have Gun - Will Carry said:
Thank you, that is exactly what I thought 66.0409 said.

My intention is not to buck the system and risk a ticket (in a county park.) I was simply asking for clarification on a point I didn't understand, because I'm new here and I saw what seems to be an inconsistency in the law - and we all know that doesn't happen in Wisconsin, right?

Thanks again, bnh.

That is EXACTLY what the forum is for, asking questions and getting answers.

Information Needed...Please?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member